By DEBERA CARLTON HARRELL, P-I REPORTER

Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Neighborhood plans have bolstered quality of life for Seattle residents, but a decrease in city funding, support and coordination over the years has eroded their potential, a city audit shows.

City Auditor Susan Cohen and her staff conducted surveys and reviewed 38 neighborhood plans crafted by citizens in the late 1990s and early 2000. The audit will be unveiled at a City Council committee meeting Thursday night.

Mayor Greg Nickels, citing many changes in the city since the plans were crafted eight years ago, has called for the plans to be updated. But some residents say they fear that effort will be taken over by the city, and lead to upzoning, or imposing more density on neighborhoods.

City Councilwoman Sally Clark asked for the audit several months ago as a way to measure progress -- or lack of it -- in implementing the neighborhood plans.

"But when we ask, what have done with the plans, how are we doing with implementation, I'd say the jury's still out on that question."

The audit shows the need for more city support and funding. Clark, once one of six city staffers charged with helping neighborhoods to implement their plans, said the elimination of those positions in 2003 eroded coordination, support and plan implementation.

"We saw a lot get done from 1999 to 2002, but after 2003, the audit shows that implementation of the plans was uneven," Clark said.

Jim Diers, the former Office of Neighborhoods director who was asked to review the audit, praised the report but said he would like "more analysis of the budget cuts and their plan implementation."

Clark said she would like to bring back neighborhood liaisons.

"I think they could be restored," Clark said. "These neighborhood plans are all about growth management. We didn't figure out enough at the front end how to accommodate many of the changes we've seen, and use the neighborhood plans as blueprints."

Auditor Cohen said the audit included an electronic survey filled out by 876 people, as well as interviews with past and present community leaders, city staff and neighborhood liaisons. The interviews included those who participated in the original planning process, and those who had not.

The survey found:

When asked if the city uses neighborhood plans, 63 percent of respondents who did participate in the original neighborhood planning process said yes, while 37 percent said no. Of respondents who did not participate in the original planning process, 55 percent said yes versus 28 percent who said no.

Asked if the neighborhood plans "produced a positive impact on specific areas," respondents were very positive: 93 percent (those involved in original planning) and 95 percent (those who were not).

Eighty-three percent of respondents said an updated neighborhood plan would improve their neighborhood; the same percentage indicated a willingness to participate in the process.

An audit team also tracked what happened to 100 plan recommendations from the Department of Neighborhoods. The success of implementation was rated from 1 to 5, with five being excellent. The effort tracked items such as the Admiral neighborhood's desire to replace a damaged totem pole with an authentic carved pole (5) and the less successful, such as Eastlake's desire to raise public awareness of trees as wildlife and park resources (1).

Clark said the full council will be briefed on the audit soon.

"My hopes for the neighborhood plan updating process is that it be as true to the principle of community-driven planning as we were the first time around," Clark said.

"I worry that if we are only focused on expediency and only have city staff driving planning, you sacrifice those great things we got out of the first round of neighborhood planning."